Ok I'm up early so I suppose we should talk about #GoT. And since such a large portion of the episode dealt with the question of succession, I feel like we are justified in taking a final look at the politics of the show.

So here's my take: the political resolution of the narrative was so unsatisfying because the writers did not have a clear sense of what was politically defective in Westeros to begin with.

If we accept the late medieval setting of the story and the source material, however remote, of the Wars of the Roses (Lannister/Lancaster vs. Stark/York) then the political problem of Westeros should have been the independence of the aristocracy.

Sir John Fortescue's Wars of the Roses-era treatise De Laudibus Legum Angliae famously named this problem "over-mighty subjects," meaning a nobility whose wealth and military power rivalled that of the crown.

In late medieval Europe, the demographic and economic fallout from the Black Death left this stratum grasping and dangerous, squeezing its peasantry and ever pressing for more lands, titles, offices. Crowns that could not satiate these demands often fell prey to them.

This seems like a good description of Westeros: the ruling dynasty was displaced by a coalition of ambitious noble houses. And the new usurper king, uninterested in governance, presided over a long period of political drift and crown indebtedness.

From this perspective, the Targaryen restoration was supposed to stand in for the coming of the Tudors: strong, centralizing Renaissance monarchs who systematically reconstruct royal power and break the independence of the nobility.

Ok, fine. But the political rise of Daenerys Targaryen in Essos was framed in radically emancipatory terms--"breaker of chains." She's John Brown, not Henry Tudor.

This always struck me as a weird Americanism. We are asked to root for her because she is an abolitionist -- the idea being that no one would get morally or politically invested in a would-be royal absolutist.

But this right here flubs the political diagnosis of Westeros: the real problem of the Seven Kingdoms is feudal anarchy and weak governance. Over-mighty subjects. "Breaking the wheel" requires more government, not less. A stronger crown, not "emancipation."

But the writers, assuming our instinctive liberalism won't allow us to root for absolutism, continue to frame Dany's program as liberation.
And when they can no longer conceal that she's doing more or less exactly what she set out to do, they immediately re-code it as tyranny -- a word that was used repeatedly last night. Again, because we can't root for stronger government.

And once this would-be Caesar is assassinated, we get . . . an elective monarchy, occupied by a man with no spouse or heir. As if the problem this whole time was a strong crown rather than a weak one.

And as the breakaway of the North suggests, this just reinforces the feudal particularism and decentralization plaguing the kingdom(s) to begin with.

The political resolution of the narrative is to formally transform Westeros into a weak, elective monarchy (like Poland) where the crown is more or less entirely subordinated to the landed aristocracy.

Who can all sit around congratulating themselves on their salvation from what in the end was obviously coded as the terrifying "oriental despotism" of Daenerys Targaryen.
PS. I did actually like Arya sailing off to discover America, since the vaunted "age of discovery" was really rooted in the same feudal crisis as all the baronial wars and peasant uprisings of the late 14th and 15th centuries.

Even with Bran being a supercomputer/god of google-fu, having the best information available is not proof of being able to utilize the best information. Ultimately, unless Bran can Warg multiple people simultaneously, all the time, there will be powerful people who will oppose his decisions and who will seek to remove or ignore him. And Bran doesn't really have the power to prevent that, I'll get to that shortly.

Fact is, with the shift to an Elective Monarchy the "Game of Thrones" has now become institutionalized. The potential gains for any suitably powerful and ambitious lord is greater than ever.

When one king dies, it becomes time to elect another and if you've connived, conned, killed and coerced enough of the competition and voting lords, you can now catapult you position to that of the highest office. Creating this opportunity for further upwards mobility, accessible only to the aristocracy, will more likely than not stifle development & mobility for the smallfolk, and reinforce the position of the aristocracy.

Given how consolidated power in westeros already is, an Elective Monarchy on it's own does nothing for the smallfolk as the smallfolk have no voice, role or power in Westerosi politics. And an Elective Monarchy does not incentivize the empowerment of the smallfolk as empowering smallfolk will only lead to widening of the competitive field for the elective monarchy. So by design, the elective monarchy is unlikely to improve anything for smallfolk.

Also as the Elective Monarchy is only applied to the highest office, that means all other roles and power structures remain unchanged which also means there is no reason to intentionally seek to improve the lives of the smallfolk. Quality of life will improve if there is peace, prosperity and stability in the realm, but it is unlikely that the vast majority of Westerosi people will see their lives, or that of their descendants get noticeably better.

The next problem with the elective monarchy is what it does to the distribution of power. Under the old system of primogeniture, there was always a clear incentive for aiding the king or a pretender during a rebellion/conflict. Regardless of who wins, the winner and their LINE who hold the highest position of power until they die out or get removed via conflict. So if you sacrifice half of your armies to put down the Blackfyre pretenders, or help Bobby B overthrow Crazy Aerys, you know that you'll be rewarded by the victor, and that your house will now curry favor & honor for generations to come. It's not a guarantee and later successors can forget about what your house had did for theirs, but for the most part there tends to be a long-lasting benefit for keeping a king on the throne or getting a new king on the throne.

Under an elective monarchy, that whole incentive is gone. Maybe the Reach contests the the election of the new King. They cry foul and call their banners to war. And perhaps the Reach is allied with the Westerlands who will benefit from putting a Reachman on the throne. Now if you are the Vale or the Riverlands, you may ask if you should bother getting involved. Perhaps if the newly elected king is your ally you might, but if you don't care for him is there an incentive? After all, the best case scenario for the elective monarchy is that the new King puts down the rebellion and has his reign. Then the Throne goes back up for grabs. What if you join the elected King's side and put down the Reach & Westerlands? Sure you'll benefit from being in the king's good graces for your efforts, but once he's gone, so is the favor you curry. What if the Reach & Westerlands haven't forgotten about your involvement in putting them down. Better hope their candidate either doesn't win, or isn't significantly biased against you now.

An elective Monarchy throws the Crownlands into a flux as their liege house changes with every new king. It's likely that we'll see the Crownlands become stricken with factionalism, skullduggery, sabotage and influence campaigns from other high lords strive to cripple and divide the power generated from the Crownlands. After all, the King's closest base of support is the Crownlands. Cripple/weaken the Crownlands and suddenly the king is significantly more dependent on his allies and home region. Also what happens when the next king doesn't want to relinquish control of the Crownlands? Bran doesn't have that issue because he can't produce any heirs and doesn't seem likely to marry or adopt or form a family. The House Stark of Kings Landing will most likely die with him. But the next King may secure his children in the Crownlands so that they retain more power long-term. What then? What if the next King gives his second son the seat of Duskendale or Rosby or Stokeworth? It could easily be done with just a little politicking. What if the king names his second son Lord Paramount of the Blackwater?

Finally, Bran Stark has an incredibly weak position. King Bran Stark presumably now holds the Crownlands & KL. Well KL is devastated so he can't expect much military power from them anytime soon and the Crownlands has never been that powerful. Now, adding to those issues is the problem of lack of alliances. It seems likely that Bran won't marry so he won't secure a marriage alliance, not that there'd be a purpose to making one with him as he will father no heirs and holds no lands other than the ones that will pass onto the next elected king. Secondly he doesn't really have the support of the North anymore. I mean sure Sansa would probably be willing to help Bran, but the North isn't his vassal anymore, nor part of the realm. It's independent.

If Bran is challenged, the North joining his side will be extremely controversial as the North would be a foreign kingdom interfering in domestic affairs. It'd only further resentment against Bran who lacks the power on his own to maintain his position. After all, aside from his "friendship" with Tyrion which would bring Westerlands support (if Tyrion did become Lord of Casterly Rock which isn't clear), Bran only has ties to the Riverlands & the Vale. Dorne, Iron Islands, the Reach, and Stormlands really owe him nothing. Dany elevated Gendry, and while Gendry may be good to Bran, there's no reason for any of his successors to be. Bronn's a cunning a cutthroat who'd cut a cripple without a second thought. Dorne & the Iron Islands owe Bran nothing and have no reason to back him.

Robert Baratheon's power existed in four forms. His legitimacy as king through successful rebellion, his personal alliances through marriage & friendship (The North thru Ned, The Vale thru Jon Arryn, the Westerlands thru Cersei), his personal power of KL & the Crownlands, & his family power of the Stormlands and Dragonstone.

Fact is Bobby B's position was unassailable as king. To fight him, one would need to match the powers of the Crownlands, Westerlands, Stormlands, Vale & The North. Of course other kingdoms will likely join him if called, if not out of duty & honor, out of doing the math behind his position.

Even the Targaryen's had real power behind their position. The early Targaryen's had Dragons & founding claim to enforce their position. Dragons automatically made challenge a non-starter. But, even after the dragons died out, the Targaryen's had founding claim & "being established" as a form of soft power. They were the kings of the seven kingdoms, who else would sit the throne if not them. The initial conquest saw the Targaryens eliminate the then dominant powers, raise different houses to positions of prominence and set precedent with that. House Baratheon had historic ties and loyalties to the Targaryens because of House Baratheon's founding & House Tyrell & Tully had loyalty/neutrality out of the Targaryen's elevating their households.

So even when the Targaryen's real source of power (dragons) died out, despite only holding Dragonstone & the Crownlands, house Targaryen had established a precedent and system that limited external threats to a historically Targaryen position. The only major conflicts the Targaryen rulers faced post conquest was Dorne (expansionary issue so not related to this), The Dance & The Blackfyres. The Dance was Targaryen v. Targaryen & the Blackfyres was basically Left Twix Vs. Right Twix. The Blackfyres was just bastard Targaryens.

Ultimately, all the changes Westeros has undergone means they've entered a new era where the King is massively weaker than ever before. Unless Bran will train his successor to be a 3 Eyed Raven and can ensure they get elected, and uses his powers a fuckton to ensure stability, the 7 kingdoms will continue to suffer from rebellions, power struggles and civil wars.

TL;DR: The establishment of an Elective Monarchy without changes to other power structures, coupled with an independent North, is a literal guarantee for the "Game of Thrones" to become a regular entrenched part of Westerosi life.

THANK YOU. You eloquently summed up my instinctive rejection of this governing structure. I have the feeling the show’s goal was to outline some sort of pseudo-Roman form of governance, but even my passing acquaintance with their history left me frustrated. Surely a powerful, centralized “benevolent tyrant” would be able to enforce the kind of social reforms we as modern readers would like to see. Westerosi society is still locked into a feudal contact where serfs and peasants don’t yet even have the right to own land. There’s hardly a middle class. The closest analogs we have in-universe, afaik are skilled artisans like Tobho Mott and minor nobles like Petyr Baelish. Westeros doesn’t even seem to have a moneylending class! To imagine that a decentralized electoral monarchy is the solution seems absurd. And given our only example of Bran’s style of rule (“You guys sweat the small details like rebuilding our infrastructure, I’m going to go skinchange a flock of seagulls and figure out where Drogon is”), Westeros isn’t exactly in the hands of a strong leader. It seems far more productive to have a tyrant like Caesar, Alexander, Ghenghis Khan or Tokugawa in a position of unquestioned power than a weak elected ruler, if only to keep the very powerful noble class in line.

That said, wouldn’t Daenerys’ reign be inherently weak because of her inability to birth heirs? Either she declares Jon her heir, which presents an opportunity for outside nobles to divide them, or she marries him. Or kills him, I suppose. But how would she solve the succession issue?

I don’t think she’s infertile either, but I feel like the show abandoned the potential of her pregnancy and so I went with what the reality the characters perceived - that Dany is incapable of birthing heirs. I do like your interpretation of the MMD prophecy.

As an aside, I wonder if the show leaned away from a pregnant Dany storyline because they had just offed the pregnant Cersei the episode before. Imagine how much Jon would have agonized had he known Dany was pregnant, or if he’d learned of her pregnancy in the throne room after he decided to kill her. That would have been a more morally gray ending for Jon, for sure. I think the constrained timeline and the criticism of the message behind that storyline would have precluded it from ever leaving the writer’s room.